The concept of the Guardian Demon

Post by **VenusSatanas** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:47 am

[justify]The concept of the guardian demon has it's origin from the legend of the Greek daimon. This was the voice of the gods that would guide those who were enlightened to their gnosis. In Greek myth, the daimon was not a specific type of being, like a spirit. Instead, it represented the action or force of fate. In Greek myth, the good daimon was known as the Agathos Daimon, and it was represented in the form of the snake. The greeks had an association between snakes, and the underworld [or, tartaros], as can be seen from the mythological imagery of the guardian of the underworld, Hecate, who holds snakes in her hands.

"A special knowledge of daimones was claimed by the sect of Pythagoreans; they could not
only hear the damiones but even see them, and expressed great surprise that this was not accepted as quite natural by other men."

For some the daimones was a religious concept, a force that represented the action and works of the gods. it also represented gnosis and wisdom, and guidance. They remained invisible to most, but to those who understood the ways of the daimon, they could be known by their actions. This can also be compared to the stories of Socrates and his inner oracle, or daimon that served as a source of inspiration all of his life.

Daimon Were the Forces of Fate
According to Hesiod, when the men of the golden age faded away, their forms were transformed 'by the will of Zeus' into the form of daimones, who were to be guardians over the race of mortal men, and act as good beings who would dispense riches. The daimon were the forces of fate, whether they were for good or for evil, and it represented the action and power of the gods in the realm of mortal men; but they were not the gods themselves, only the result of their movements. The works of the gods were veiled through the force of the daimon.

This daimon served as a guardian by working as the guiding hand of the gods. It also served as an enemy, or force of resistance. It is not too difficult to see that the forces that represented the actions of the gods, were eventually 'demonized' by the church, and were proclaimed to be evil, and a source of trickery and deceit. Of course, under the rule of the 'one god' of monotheism, the forces of the former gods were abandoned as 'pagan', eventually and the rest is history.

The Greek Daimon and the Roman 'Genius'
I wanted to see if the word daimon and the word genius were related. It would seem that the greek 'daimon' would be synonymous with the word, genius, if it represented some kind of inner knowledge or gnosis. The greek daimon were similar to the Roman Lares, which were spirits that served to guide and protect, and [in roman mythology] they served in specific areas, such as fields, or houses. The word genius is latin. it is related to ingenium, 'the genius of the mind'. This refers to the self, and one's on intelligence and knowledge, and not to the spirits, daimones, or lares that the Greeks and Romans knew.

However, later on in history the word 'genius' is also described as a guardian spirit:
"1390, from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin), from PIE base *gen- "produce." Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" first recorded 1649."

The key point here is that to understand why we use the terms we use today in magic and satanism, its important to know the history of these ideas. The daimon is not the 'inner genius', it was the force of the gods in physical manifestation. The genius, according to mythology is the guardian spirit that influences the actions and intelligence of the self. From the root of the word, 'beget or produce' we can see how the genius spirit produces knowledge, or knowing [gnosis, or genius]. It is, what it creates. From the other usage of the word, a 'person of talent' we can see how 'genius' is described as something that is experienced by the naturally adept.

So why do Satanists believe that they have to have a guardian demon?

Why do people believe that they have to have a 'guardian demon'? Is it that they want some type of magical interaction, but that they also want a barrier of protection and guidance to cushion them when they fall? Do people really lack that much *will*, that they are ready to replace self assertion with delusion? Is a Demon really going to guard you and protect you as if you were one of it's own children to nurture?

I think not.

A 'demon' is not the same as the greek 'daimon', and it is also not the same as the Latin 'genius'. While the word demon certainly developed from the Greek daimon, its meaning took on a different connotation at a later point in history. From the Christian Gk. translations and Vulgate Demon means "god of the heathen" and "unclean spirit." Their purpose is to guide, and deceive.

I am not the type to believe in souls, in the afterllife, in reincarnation, in soulmates, or guardian spirits. Others might, but that is their prerogative. Belief in a guardian demon could be a very dualistic view, leaving one with only the choice of good or evil based on the mechanism of guilt or reward.

But there are two ways to approach this. demons, gods, spirits and the like can be experienced as an external phenomenon, and they can also be experienced internally. But, to really seek the kind of guidance that will last you a lifetime, it takes a certain amount of dedication, and searching before the opportunity arises and you have your chance to 'align' yourself with a force such as this. if a demon is to be a guardian it should be worshiped as a caregiver, it becomes a relationship, thus lending the self to a position of subservience - just to experience enlightenment.

[ref: GREEK RELIGION By WALTER BURKERT http://tinyurl.com/daimones ]
'damon does not designate a specific class of divine beings but a peculiar mode of activity" p.181
'the damion was the force of the veiled countenance of divine activity.' ibid.

See Also:
The Holy Guardian Angel, A tricky Devil:
[http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/ess_hga.html 4/19/09][/justify]

Zelos · Post by **Zelos** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:18 pm

I hate to break it to you, but this author isn't quite historically accurate. Although the daimons may had represented forces, so did nearly all their gods. The ancient Greeks (like many of their neighbors and descendants) were well known for personifying the forces of being in human(esque) form, and thus lead to the daimon. The daimon was generally an entity of significant power which many times was seen as a manifestation of an intangible force, such as passion or trance, but without the same standing of the more recognizable gods, and commonly served as the bridge between mortal and god. There are many classic examples of such, from the twin brothers Hypnos and Thanatos, to my namesake Zelos, and even the greatest of the Greek military heroes (whom had established cults) would be considered daimons.

As per the actual topic at hand though, I'd have to say that it stems from a combination of xtian hangover upon many Satanists ("Well if they get an angel, shouldn't I get a demon?"

it's not a pretty thought but it happens. ) and the thelemic view of the HGA (holy guardian angel, more so the latter in this context actually... though that would explain the "see also HGA" at the bottom of the above post...

Bah, I dislike authors in general when it comes to subjects of the occult. So much so that if I ever in fact finish and publish my writings, I'll begin yelling at all the people who quote me, and inevitably be banned from all forums on the internet who cover such topics and have heard of said writings, due to being a "troll who doesn't have a clue" (about the very passages I may eventually write.) and well... That's as good of an end to a post as any.

Post by **VenusSatanas** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:56 pm

Walter Burkert (born Neuendettelsau, Bavaria, February 2, 1931), a scholar of Greek mythology and cult, is an emeritus professor of classics at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and also has taught in the United Kingdom and the United States. He has influenced generations of students of religion since the 1960s, combining in the modern way the findings of archaeology and epigraphy with the work of poets, historians, and philosophers. He has published books on the balance between lore and science among the followers of Pythagoras, and more extensively on ritual and archaic cult survival.."

I was wondering why you said Burkert's writings weren't historically accurate. Without explaining why this is so, i have to go with my original theory. The biography of this author obviously speaks otherwise. Burkert's writings are one of many other references that I am using to compile an essay on the guardian demon. Could you perhaps recommend any other authors that specialized in the 'daimon' throughout history?

Zelos wrote:"Well if they get an angel, shouldn't I get a demon?"

Exactly.
These people who want a guardian demon because their christian friends have guardian angels, are usually the same types of satanists who are religious in their beliefs, who are willing to prostrate themselves before satan, and who are generally subservient in attitude.. I think this mindset comes from 'christian conditioning'..it is the belief that all one has to have is faith in the benevolence of their god in order to get riches and happiness. This is only a mode of religious worship, and the benefits of religious worship -

I dont think that religious worship is the same as the Guardian Demon, the HGA or any other concept of 'inner genius', unless the one being worshiped is the self.

Zelos · Post by **Zelos** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:43 am

I'm not quite sure what more you're asking for as for details... I thought I had explained the usage of the term in my last post.

As per why he's not historically accurate, that would quite simply come down to him imposing his personal opinions upon history, for it to better suit his personal dogma. It's a common issue, and one of the worst in anything involving history of any sort, although especially common on the more influential and idealized societies in history, with Ancient Greece being by far the greatest idealized in all of the western world. (except for during the Nazi period, in which it took second place)

The clearest example of this is how he makes this statement here "In Greek myth, the daimon was not a specific type of being, like a spirit. Instead, it represented the action or force of fate. " which entirely fails to take into account the fact that there was historically more than one accepted viewpoint on how and if the gods and forces existed in the first place, there being three distinct sects of thought in fact if one were to not count (or rather, group them in with another category) the numerous cults. If he truly was willing to admit history for what it was, he would had stated such, rather than making such a sweeping statement which is absolutely false for the VAST majority of Greeks of the period. This was in fact a minority opinion which only a small number of cults took to heart, and of which was merely topic of discussion to most philosophers rather than a viewpoint. (some skeptics aside.) Now, the line which in conjunction with this fact backs my statement, would be this.

"I am not the type to believe in souls, in the afterllife, in reincarnation, in soulmates, or guardian spirits. Others might, but that is their prerogative."

Note how the two points sync up perfectly? I may not be making the best argument, but I lack much more to go off of, but it is enough for the time being. This man is clearly adjusting history to fit his own viewpoints, rather than taking history and building off of it openly.

As per his position... Meaningless. It's been commonplace ever since the establishment of the modern university for historians to ignore facts in order to make a prettier picture to present to the crowds, and very few have ever been able to break that mold, and almost all who have were considered laughingstocks until they had proven themselves. A good example would be how the vast majority of historians considered the very existence of the city of Troy to have been utter nonsense, and treated the exact same way as the Atlantis myth has been treated today... yet it was found.

I'm losing topic though. Honestly I'd need more information to go off of for a decent evaluation of this person and their views, but this... Well I'm not going to lie and say that this was the best job I could do, but with numerous interruptions and things I won't bother getting into, it will do.

Post by **VenusSatanas** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:36 pm

As per why he's not historically accurate, that would quite simply come down to him imposing his personal opinions upon history,

Of course, writers that write about history and mythology tend to give their interpretation of events in history, unless it is encyclopedic content, or a dictionary entry, or college course writing. this is not uncommon. I am looking for various viewpoints on the subject, so as i said if you know of any other authors that have written about the daimon, do let me know.

If he truly was willing to admit history for what it was, he would had stated such, rather than making such a sweeping statement which is absolutely false for the VAST majority of Greeks of the period

Yes this is why i am searching for more than just a general reference. at any rate, more information besides this one reference is needed in order to understand the relationship between the daimon, the demon, and the genius spirit. hopefully i will find an author who can counter his claims, so i can get another view of the story.

I wonder if the Etruscan had the 'daimon' as well..

Zelos · Post by **Zelos** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:20 pm

No no no, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. It's not that he's showing history from his viewpoint, but rather putting forth history the way he would prefer it to have been.

Post by **VenusSatanas** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:04 am

Zelos wrote:No no no, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. It's not that he's showing history from his viewpoint, but rather putting forth history the way he would prefer it to have been.

You haven't really given me any concrete examples of how he did this, but i'll take your word for it.

Arckangel · Post by **Arckangel** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:37 am

Well, I'm not opposed to the idea of having a Guardian Demon. I know, for instance, there are 72 Kabbalah Angels, just like there are 72 Goetics. I read we all have one main, and two more Kabbalah Guardian Angels.

Christians, especially Catholics, pray to Guardian Angels, use various tools of of protection such as medals, scapulars etc.

If a Satanist does not resort to the means of protection I just mentionned, how are they safeguard their own immunity (physical and spiritual attacks)?

They can work with a Demon and wear their sigil. If not sufficient... They should seek more advanced forms of safety.

Being under a Demon's patronage does not mean the Demon would babysit them like they're babies... It would just put the person under the Demon's ''radar''...

Zelos · Post by **Zelos** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:47 am

Or you could just believe in your own will to be sufficient.

Post by **VenusSatanas** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:18 am

Or you could just believe in your own will to be sufficient.

Technically, this would be the best option, especially in working with the demonic.

Zelos · Post by **Zelos** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:46 am

Ahh, tis great to be technically correct, after all, it is indeed the best kind of correct is it not?

alex nero · Post by **alex nero** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:26 am

Do I believe in the concept of a guardian demon?Well,Satan is my god and master,so ultimately He is my guardian.However,I believe many other beings,or demons,serve Satan and act in accordance with His wishes.Since I am aligned with Satan,any being serving or supporting Satan is on my side.So really,if anything,I have many guardians.But,obviously,I am responsible for myself ,so I am my own guardian first.I have felt the influence of Satan in my life,but I have not seen Satan ,nor a demon,nor do I expect to. (I'll let you know if this changes!) I believe Satan is inside all of us,yet has an independent existence outside us as well.I agree with Venus Satanas that Satan and his demons can be experienced internally and externally.Since Satan resides in the collective unconsciousness of everyone,His influence is vast indeed.Whether help is received from Satan,or a demon,or any unseen or seen force is one issue-----the religious-philosophical -psychological-spiritual source of the help is what is important,giving all praise to Satan accordingly.